COVID-19 ... how we cope :)

[Erik Malmsten]

Doctors in Ontario aren't fighting government bureaucrats to give Vitamin D to patients. They're fighting homes that place profit above care:
https://www.cp24.com/news/it-s-a-cri...omes-1.5283057

Montreal study promoting colchicine, anti-inflammatory by prescription.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-r...d-19-1.5279310

I don't know anything about the differences about anti-inflammatory medications..

[Dilip Panjwani]

They're fighting homes that place profit above care:
..

Maybe one of them can establish a LTC home which is so efficient that it can provide better care within the same resources... if only the government would get rid of regulations that are likely preventing more than one of them from doing so...
(The profit plus management costs in the private homes are very likely smaller than the invariably bloated 'admin' costs and the 'passed on' debt repayment costs in a similar public home)

[Peter McKillop]

.... very likely .....

When it comes to certain things in our society, such as LTC facilities for the elderly, there shouldn't be any 'very likelies'. Whether they're run by the government, privately-held corporations, or publicly-held corporations, etc., there should be complete transparency for LTC facilities. One possible example of what I mean: detailed (e.g. compensation particulars for all senior officers), publicly-available, audited financial statements. And, Dilip, re your comment on regulations, those entities that can't meet the public's/government's expectations should drop out of the business or be forced out.

Dilip, you seem to have libertarian leanings. What would happen to the homeless and other marginalized peoples in a libertarian society?

[Dilip Panjwani]

What would happen to the homeless and other marginalized peoples in a libertarian society?

With easy access to capital, co-operation from family and friends, and of course no cumbersome regulations to get blindsided by, they would be able to easily fend for themselves, and some of them may even become celebrities!
In a true libertarian society, one of the very few roles of government would be to ensure that a job can be offered to anyone who wants to do one...

[Garland Best]

I am amazed that Garland Best isn't also asking you these questions.

Put it down to Covid exhaustion. I spent the better part of a week debating Sid. In the end I felt it was not worth it any more. I am not going to change his mind and he is not going to change mine. All further debate is going to do is give him more of a platform to espouse his views. And it is far easier for him to just submit link after link than it is for me to go through every link and break down their flaws.

No doubt Sid thinks of himself as a 21st century Canadian version of Ignaz Semmelweis. I think his recommendations are dangerous and would cause great harm to people. He thinks the actions of most western governments already are.

I have better things to do than just argue on this site about ways to combat Covid-19. As noted elsewhere, doing so here is not going to change a damn thing.

This used to be a chess website. Maybe some day it can be one again.

I'm going off to spend more time with my family. I probably won't be posting here for a while.

Stay healthy. Stay safe. I hope we can all have a drink together soon.

[Sid Belzberg]

Put it down to Covid exhaustion. I spent the better part of a week debating Sid. In the end I felt it was not worth it any more. I am not going to change his mind and he is not going to change mine. All further debate is going to do is give him more of a platform to espouse his views. And it is far easier for him to just submit link after link than it is for me to go through every link and break down their flaws.

No doubt Sid thinks of himself as a 21st century Canadian version of Ignaz Semmelweis. I think his recommendations are dangerous and would cause great harm to people. He thinks the actions of most western governments already are.

I have better things to do than just argue on this site about ways to combat Covid-19. As noted elsewhere, doing so here is not going to change a damn thing.

This used to be a chess website. Maybe some day it can be one again.

I'm going off to spend more time with my family. I probably won't be posting here for a while.

Stay healthy. Stay safe. I hope we can all have a drink together soon.

I think his recommendations are dangerous and would cause great harm to people.

Wow, may I remind you that you posted here that you were in favor of BOTH early Intervention and lockdowns? I have made it abundantly clear
that when corrupt Medical bureaucrats (many with no medical background) stop interfering with the rights of doctors to make informed
and responsible risk-benefit analysis decisions with respect to prescribing off-label prescriptions only then will this pandemic end and could have
ended 9 months ago. "Two weeks to flatten the curve" LOL!! Lockdowns without allowing early intervention will never work!

I consider the true "Ignaz Semmelweis" people like Dr . Zelenko , Dr Tyson, Dr Fareed , Dr Borody to name a few. They have saved tens of thousands of lives.
How many have you saved Garland???? Wake up and see the world the way it IS!
You accused us of having biased research and of course left that question unanswered when I asked you for a single counter example (ie negative early intervention Ivermectin paper for early high risk patients, I will go one better show me a single HCQ combo paper that shows negative efficacy for early high risk patients.

Garland, produce the goods or stop making dangerous pronouncements with no evidence to support your false positions.
That's our data https://c19study.com, where is yours?? Common Garland, just one paper .....put up or shut up! By the way, do
you think the Govt of India are fools??? How about Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, South Korea, all have embraced not interfering with Dr's
early intervention. All have way lower death rates than all the Western Govts including Canada which is now an international disgrace in the way they
treat Dr's.

Dr's will see justice sooner than you imagine! Note Paragrah 6 page 12

https://www.scribd.com/document/4922...of-Civil-Claim

[Sid Belzberg]

Here's a frontline Ontario ER physician, respected by his colleagues, who the Ford gov't is trying to punish for criticism of the gov't's pandemic policies. All of this assumes the newspaper reporter got the facts right but, still, it gives pause for thought regarding gov't interference and efforts to be non-transparent. Sid, I assumed your claims of gov't interference in doctor-patient relationships was U.S. based but it appears the situation in Canada deserves a closer look.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...rd-government/

Interesting, many Dr's in Ontario that are not covered by the major papers have been unjustly harassed and maligned in Ontario
for simply wanting to exercise their risk benefit analysis decision criteria in. evaluating how to treat a patient.

The result is many Dr's feel their hands are tied when it comes to early intervention. This is not unique to Canada and I can
count on one hand how many countries do not harass their Dr's.. The biggest country is India that has embraced Ivermectin
and HCQ on a large scale despite pressures from the WHO not to.Fortunately for them the Indian Health Authorities operate independently of the WHO.
Here is another really good white paper on HCQ.
https://secureservercdn.net/72.167.2...te-Oct-13.pdth

[Peter McKillop]

With easy access to capital, co-operation from family and friends, and of course no cumbersome regulations to get blindsided by, they would be able to easily fend for themselves, and some of them may even become celebrities!
In a true libertarian society, one of the very few roles of government would be to ensure that a job can be offered to anyone who wants to do one...

Your comments seem a bit Pollyanna-ish but then I'm a neophyte when it comes to the practical applications of libertarianism. For example, why would access to capital be any easier in a libertarian society than it is now? And why would families and friends be any more cooperative or caring in a libertarian society than they are now? And as for marginalized people easily being able to fend for themselves in a libertarian society, why? What about problems like mental illness, addiction, and sex trafficking? After all, people are people and rather a lot of them tend to be scumbags. Why would there be any fewer scumbags in a libertarian society than there are now?

Dilip, I don't expect you to play the role of teacher and answer all of these questions but you have piqued my curiosity. Once lockdown has ended I'll visit the library to see if they have a copy of Libertarianism for Dummies. :)

[Erik Malmsten]

Maybe one of them can establish a LTC home which is so efficient that it can provide better care within the same resources... if only the government would get rid of regulations that are likely preventing more than one of them from doing so...
(The profit management costs in the private homes are very likely smaller than the invariably bloated 'admin' costs and the 'passed on' debt repayment costs in a similar public home)

The "efficiency" is achieved by reducing the number of staff, reduced pay for staff, use of mostly part-time staff, with no sick day pay or backup when staff have sick days. Lack of medical supplies (PPE) or covid testing, or a plan in the cases of medical outbreaks. Sick residents require more workers. I expect a LTC business to take a loss when an outbreak happens. What is the "efficient" level of deaths? After all, there is a large waiting list to move in.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The "efficiency" is achieved by reducing the number of staff, reduced pay for staff, use of mostly part-time staff, with no sick day pay or backup when staff have sick days. Lack of medical supplies (PPE) or covid testing, or a plan in the cases of medical outbreaks. Sick residents require more workers.
I expect a LTC business to take a loss when an outbreak happens.

That is what happens either when there is 'public' monopoly or competition has been stifled in other ways by the government.
True efficiency is achieved by being creative, by introducing novel initiatives which ensure that the staff enjoy what needs to be done, which eliminate waste ... it is like how a grandmaster uses his time on the clock vs. how a patzer does...

What you call a loss, should be looked upon as a gift the business may choose to give its local community suffering through the pandemic...

[Aris Marghetis]

Once lockdown has ended I'll visit the library to see if they have a copy of Libertarianism for Dummies. :)

I found this site interesting:

https://www.libertarianism.org/

[Peter McKillop]

I found this site interesting:

https://www.libertarianism.org/

Thanks for that link, Aris. Looks like my work is cut out for me! :)

[Ben Daswani]

Libertarianism for Dummies.

You forgot the word "is".

[Peter McKillop]

You forgot the word "is".

LOL! Welcome back, Ben. Still working south of the border?

[Ben Daswani]

LOL! Welcome back, Ben. Still working south of the border?

Thanks, Peter. No, I am not. I moved there with big dreams in mind, but it ultimately made sense to come home, as it became increasingly unlikely that I was going to marry Ariana Grande.

I have been reading this thread for some time now, and frankly I have been continually astonished... not at the level of stuidity (this is ChessTalk), but at the level of stupidity that has gone unpunished. To all the homies fighting for good out there, if you are going to trade barbs with some sputtering halfwit on the Internet, you need to eviscerate their cocky facade until they can't put on that smug, self-satisfied mask they sheepishly don every morning (immediately after waking up in a bed in which no woman has ever had an orgasm, ever, and before hobbling over to the bathroom to experience their daily thirty minutes of being reminded of the results of decades of poor lifestyle choices, while trying to run from the knowledge via furious, Olympic-level scrolling through the social media feeds of younger extended family members who "keep forgetting" to add them back).

Old people whose views and values have become antiquated (or young people who never had a healthy understanding of the world in the first place — shouts to my main man, Mavros Whissell) know, deep down, that they're idiots. They know it. But they're afraid that you know they know it. And so they putter along, thinking, "If I never admit I'm wrong, they'll never know that I don't have 100% faith in the garbage I spew." They already know you know they've need of wits. Their last vestige of hope is in clinging to the belief that you don't know they've need of confidence, too.

But we do know, don't we, folks? And it's important to let them know just how idiotic they sound. This isn't a culture carousel; it's a culture war. Eviscerate, eliminate, or, I suppose if they're not adults yet, (re-)educate. But in this case, just eviscerate and eliminate.

Without further ado...

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Did you know that 2300 years ago Arabs discovered that forcing people to cover their nose and mouths broke their will and individuality and depersonalized them? It made them submissive. That’s why they imposed on every woman the MANDATORY use of fabric over her face. Modern psychology explains it: without face we don’t exist as independent beings. The mask is the beginning of deleting individuality. He who doesn’t know his history is condemned to repeat it..

Interesting claim! Know what stands out, right off the bat? The fact that it's written at at least a seventh grade level. Very suspicious. Must be a quote, no? But why would Sid Belzberg, The King of Citing 'Authority' by Linking to Some Random Shit, not mention his outside source? A quick Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22m...er+her+face%22) elucidates.

The quote is just some random factoid being spread around the Internet, although not even that often, while being appended with such scientific sourcing techniques as "one of my daughters sent an article to me" and "unattributable but very likely, in my view". I wonder if Belzberg also received this information in an email? Or if he found the quote where it most fequently appeared, on Facebook? I wonder why he felt it was reasonable to cite it as fact without looking into it? I wonder why he didn't mention, not just where he copied it from, but even that he had copied it? Those constitute three distinct abominations of basic human reasonability contained in one swift Ctrl+V. Wow, that's not very academic! I had totally assumed Belzberg was an expert in both scholarly fact and form, what with him having completed an undergraduate degree several decades ago in a field that is, at the best of times, tenuously related to whatever's being discussed!

Can you imagine how annoying someone like Belzberg would be if he also had even a basic understanding of syntax, and weren't completely out of his mind? Oh, speaking of...

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

With easy access to capital, co-operation from family and friends, and of course no cumbersome regulations to get blindsided by, they would be able to easily fend for themselves, and some of them may even become celebrities!

As you can possibly infer from this remark, libertarianism is an ideology followed almost exclusively by people who have never been able to form connections with anyone in circumstances different than their own. "If only there were fewer regulations in society... I would be more productive, everyone I know from med school would be more productive, the boys from the poker game would be more productive, even the accountants at the hospital would be more productive! That's literally everybody!"

The toughest thing about making a libertarian look like an idiot is deciding where to start. These people are so detached from the way society operates that literally every single thing they say is just... off. They don't do absolutely insane shit, like get their worldview from anonymous chain emails, but everything they believe is just... a bit off. Let's break it down, kids.

1. "With easy access to capital,"

Yeah, no shit. That's the goal of every political system: to make sure everyone has access to capital, or whatever else ensures security. No one is doubting that the world would be better if there were easier access to wealth and the benefits wealth represents. The problem is that you haven't explained why libertarianism will do that. Why will removing legislation increase access to capital among those whose lives are currently most negatively impacted by their lack of access?

If you look closely, you'll realize that every time a libertarian argues that deregulation will reduce suffering, their argument is either contingent on some assumption being true, or even more ridiculous, just an obviously true statement devoid of political implication. "Libertarianism is good, because there will be no more war." What? "Libertarianism is good, because infant mortality is bad." This guy's read Friedman! It reminds me a conversation I had recently with my young niece. A rough transcript follows:

Niece: We should leave all the books unorganized, so we can find books more easily, as finding books easily is good.
Me: Sorry, Niece, but that will not actually produce the intended result.
Niece: What, don't you think we should be able to find our books?!
Me: Finding books easily is indeed good — to wit, it creates value that can be directly translated into more human control over existence — but you have not explained why leaving the books unorganized will make it easier to find our books. Without demonstrating this, the syllogism fails.
Niece: I understand. I will stop making such an obvious error.

I looked at Dr. Dilip's most recent post (https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...e40#post211460), and those are exactly the sorts of arguments he raises.

"Deregulation, and/or increased private competition, reduces the likelihood of underemployment."
"Efficiency and novel ideas improve work conditions."

Props to Dr. Dilip. He used both shitty arguments in one paragraph, so I didn't have to read all that much of his crap. I appreciate that you respect my time, baby.

2. "co-operation from family and friends,"

Okay, I admit it: this one is actually a good point. I was speaking to an unhoused person in the DTES last week, and he told me that his family and friends had all said they'd help him as soon as the TSXV relaxes disclosure requirements.

3. "and of course no cumbersome regulations to get blindsided by,"

Some things by which I could see a financially struggling person getting blindsided: a sudden loss of income, being forced to move from their living space, unanticipated changes to the system by which they've obtained credit. Wow, look at that. All of those scenarios are less likely to occur by regulating people's property rights. I can't believe it. I'm shocked. I read Atlas Shrugged twenty years ago and it didn't even mention this. What the hell. Life is a wild ride, and it's out of control.

4. "they would be able to easily fend for themselves, and some of them may even become celebrities!"

This isn't particularly dumb in any fashion that hasn't been explicated, but it certainly is a brand-spanking-new type of disgustng. First, you're effing grad school educated, Dr. Dilip. How the hell would you know how easily or uneasily society's less fortunate will survive under some circumstance? Have you been homeless in recent times? Have you been a single mother? Have you been the victim of intergenerational state-sponsored trauma? Then, consider, maybe, just perhaps, letting those people tell you what will or will not be easy for them to do. Second, "fend for themselves" is a bullshit phrase. We live in a society (we live in a society). The whole God damn point is so that people don't have to fend for themselves. Finally, your reference to celebrity shows just how severely the cult of American consumerism has poisoned your brain. The point of a fucking economic system isn't to make people celebrities; it's to reduce suffering and increase equality.

"Lot of dudes still starving to death, but some of them eating at Drizzy's house, so like, yeah: A Libertarian Manifesto"

Before we end this little session, Dr. Dilip, I'd like to point out a disturbing fallacy that I've seen you (and, to be fair, others) present many times on these here ChessTalks. Several of you have said something along the lines of, "Fascism is bad, but communism is bad too." I admit, I used to make this argument too. Later, however, I wasn't a teenager. What is inherently bad about communism? Better yet, what is inherent to communism? I don't mean the USSR or Castro or Mao or any alleged application of communism. I mean the concept of communism itself. What would you say? "Redistribution of wealth according to need instead of ability"? "A controlled economy in which capital is publicly owned"? Because, just so you know, the ideals inherent to fascism are racial/national superiority and war. Maybe you don't like the idea of a controlled economy. That's fine. That's your right. But if you consider it the "left-wing" equivalent of genocide, you are an absolute idiot.